That title-- for anyone who has raised, helped to raise, been near someone who was raising, or was themselves, a child in the last twenty years, that phrase brings up some strong memories. For me, I get a generic image of a three-year-old, huffing and whining, stamping their foot and pointing at something in a very angry but wordless tirade. "Use your words!" i.e., Be a functional, socially adjusted and educated adult and communicate your desires to me in a manner which I can readily understand so that I might accommodate you accordingly.
When a child goes into a crowd, what usually follows is a string of apologies to everyone whom the child runs into. The parents follow in the wake, apologizing to everyone as their child goes barreling into legs and purses and whatnot, never saying a word. If an adult does the same thing, I'm assuming that the crowd wouldn't be so understanding. Children, they don't know any better; but an adult ought to. When someone runs into you, don't you expect an apology? If you were standing selecting produce, or meat, or whatever, something on the shelf, and someone were to come along and reach across you, just sort of wordlessly push you out of the way, you would be offended, yes? Do you think that you regularly do that, just shove someone else away so that you can occupy this space?
Well, you might not think you don't, but I can almost guarantee you that yes, you do. You, who are supposedly a well-adjusted and normal, polite, functional adult, almost certainly, frequently reach across and push aside and grunt and just shove your way into places. You've probably done it today.
I talk about driving a lot on this blog. That's because it's very easy to do correctly, not particularly hard to do well, and there are laws upon rules upon suggestions upon design upon rule upon requirement upon law upon rule designed to keep you safe from everyone else, to keep everyone else safe from you, and to keep everyone alive. And while I understand that things happen, and driving is very dangerous, there are absolutely things everyone can do to make everyday driving less hazardous.
Like, USE YOUR WORDS.
Turn signals, shithead. Fucking. Turn. Signals. A little light, which is a different color and FLASHES to draw attention, a little light that's SO EASY to turn on- just two inches of motion in your fingers, *click*, signal. Indicating to everyone around you where you intend to go, and if used appropriately, *when* you're going to try to occupy that space. (i.e., don't drive down the highway with your turn signal on!)
Like the man or woman shoving through a crowd, no one uses turn signals. So many people ignore them. But honestly, if everyone used them, everyday driving would be SO MUCH LESS STRESSFUL, which means everyone would be less pissed off, which would lead to fewer accidents.
Turn signals are your words. That's how you say, "Excuse me, I'd like to be *there*, if I may? Excuse me...." and they say, "Oh, sure, since you're indicated in a timely manner to me what you intend to do, I can easily adjust my speed to allow these two lanes of traffic to seamlessly merge, thereby not interrupting or interrupting the least amount possible the flow of traffic." Very simple.
I'm not sure what there really is to extrapolate on...
USE YOUR WORDS
USE YOUR TURN SIGNALS
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Saturday, May 9, 2015
Friday, October 17, 2014
So I just saw a story that the DoD has changed uniform regulations to allow for military members to wear turbans, scarves, beards, and whatever other religious things they want while on duty.
Now, while I just read another article about this, and apparently any such allowances would have to be granted by the units' command, and that they must not interfere with the service member's safety or health in any way. Which makes sense. BUT:
Military uniforms are called UNIFORMs for a REASON: they're uniform! Everything is interchangeable and smooth, every action repeatable, every part interchangeable. It doesn't matter if you don't like wearing a cover, or-- oh, for you non-Marines (far too many of you are out there...) a "cover" is your uniform's hat-- or whatever, guess what? It doesn't fucking matter; you're wearing a cover. You like having your hat on inside? Too bad, you take it off the moment you set foot inside that door.
These are basic things, things which reinforce the importance of unity and uniformity. Every man and woman needs to be able to take any other warrior's place if the need should arise. That is the mentality which supports most everything in the military. In boot camp, every single rack is literally measured an exact distance from each wall; from each other; from the Drill Instructor's Highway; every footlocker is stacked precisely; each and every combination lock is pointed to "0"; every rack is made exactly the same way. That way, if something happens to you, anyone in the area can help you out.
Find one method which works and can be replicated en masse, and that becomes military doctrine for the next century, because "we know that this way works, and we would much rather take the confirmed way than take chances with how you want to do things." And what happens if you're in camp and there's an emergency, say you were stabbed in your rack, and-- OK, "rack" is your bed-- and someone came rushing in to save you. They had everything needed, but they tripped on the footlocker and fell, cracking their head on the rifle that wasn't where they'd expected it to be, and now you're going to die. So, everything is done the same way. Nothing is mixed up or lost or confused, because everyone knows exactly where everything will be in everyone else's space.
This stems from combat-- a concept which I fear is being lost in the military, that policy should absolutely reflect those ideals for combat; the things learned in combat should absolutely imbue every action of the organization. In combat, every man knows the job of the man above him in rank/position; therefore, if the top man gets killed, the unit isn't necessarily lost, because immediately there is at least one other person there who knows how to lead them. Therefore, EVERYTHING that you do, everything you see, everything you make, must be replicable and repeatable by someone else, so that when you're in combat it's totally automatic to learn what to do in your command's place, and make it as easy as possible for the man below you to pick up in your place. Say a large portion of a unit's command was wiped out in combat; a large-scale ingress of officers and staff would be needed to replace them, and the predecessors wouldn't be there to teach their method of filing or anything like that. So, if everything is done the same way everywhere, anyone can theoretically step in and take over if needed.
I'm rambling; I'm not even sure if this makes any sense at this point. If not, say something; I'll try to edit it when I'm actually awake sometime, make it more... intelligible.
But anyway: so, yes. Everything is, more or less, interchangeable.
And everything must be efficient and effective. This is why men must keep their hair very short-- because, for so long, men have been the only ones officially in combat roles; so, what was best in combat was determined. Uniformity is enforced, and efficiency is greatly increased. For women, the rule is essentially that the hair cannot interfere with wearing any military headgear- soft covers or Kevlar (helmet). Uniform, and effective.
Facial hair has been almost entirely banned. Special Forces units (MARSOC, SEALS, Delta, etc.) are permitted to grow facial hair, either to blend into the local populace of their AO [Area of Operation] or to minimize their efforts and footprint (waste, time spent, etc.) with shaving. But facial hair is generally banned, as it can easily harbor all kinds of dirt and grime and festering infections, and your face is NOT where you want an infection! So, facial hair is kept *minimal*, enough to discourage it entirely; hair on top of the head is kept rather brutally short, with rigid regulations as to the style and shape-- again, to enforce uniformity.
But now, you're going to be allowed facial hair? Oh, no. No.
Because now, we'll get to the final point. This is a little bit of Marine snobbery, but I do think it's true: EVERYTHING should be *about* combat. I say this is Marine Corps moto (motivation, for you civilians) because the Corps, on the closer-to-combat-infantry levels, is still focused on combat. The Corps is overwhelmingly focused on infantry MOS's; the majority of Marines are 03's (infantry). The Army is rather the other way around; but the Army has a massively different job than the Marine Corps, and as such should be more widely based. The Corps is the attack dog, the shock-and-awe punch; we're born of naval-based assault, i.e. "putting large and prepared ground forces in places you didn't expect", and Marine Ground, Air, and Artillery forces all work together very closely. Marines are a heavily concentrated attack on every level. We do less with more- "improvise, adapt, and overcome!"- because advance attack troops are often out beyond resupply and support. We train to achieve maximum combat efficiency- "every Marine a rifleman." But as top brass lose sight of that reality- they, sitting in their offices in comfortable Washington, D.C.- their policy shifts, it changes, to better conform to what they see of the Corps (those cushy offices and high-priced suits). Those changes are uniform-wide, so what they see as being best in their situation winds up being enforced halfway around the world, in a situation which is NOTHING LIKE theirs, and it distracts the focus away from combat, and onto the rulebooks.
The basic rules in the Marine Corps are based on combat; most every uniform rule can be traced back to its combat-related origins. For example, in Marine Corps Boot Camp, you are required to only ever hold your cup in the chow hall in one way: with your forefinger and thumb circled around the base, and your other three fingers curled fist-like beneath the base of the cup. It wasn't for some time that we learned why: that is precisely the drill-correct position to hold your fingers when pulling the bolt back during drill, at the "Inspection Arms" movement. It was so ingrained in your head already by then that it was natural. Everything in boot camp was like that, and quite a bit of the Corps in general is much like that. Combat-related movements, thought patterns, everything, all of it embedded within other routine motions, so that you don't even realize you're learning. It's the Karate Kid, only Mr Miyagi won't yell at him- Mr Miyagi will chew you the fuck out, scream at you until you feel like the dumbest, most worthless piece of shit on this Earth, and then make you do it all over again... all night. But then, after a week, suddenly it's all ingrained and muscle memory and automatic. So when you're riding in a truck on your first time outside the wire, and your truck gets blown off the road in an ambush, you aren't desperately and uselessly flailing at your rifle and missing every shot and endangering everyone even more; it's instinct. You've been doing this every day for the last two years, even if you didn't know it.
So, that's a long rant to say this: the best possible way to live in and through combat should be the basis for every rule and decision made, at least in combat elements. I.e., the entire Marine Corps, some of the Army and the Navy, a few Coasties, and NONE of the Chair Force. So if pilots want to wear bears and turbans over their club blazers, whipped in the wind as they zip along in their new sporty convertible, then that's fine. But Marines MUST stay focused on fighting.
I believe that that's a large part of why General Amos had so little respect from the day he stepped in as the Commandant; the basic Infantry Rifleman, 0311, and all of the 03's, and everyone who worked closely with 03's and thus picked up their mindset (i.e., most of the Corps-- except the Chair Wing) felt like the command had forgotten about them. The focus wasn't on them; the focus was on "looking professional for photos, so that Mommy and Daddy will be so proud of their little warrior, and won't complain to the Press about the Marine Corps being bloody and terrifying!" And while maybe that sounds selfish, like a child throwing a fit for attention, realize that this comes from 03's. Riflemen, machine gunners, Recon, snipers, the guys who are literally pointing weapons in the face of the guys who are trying to attack this country. I think that they earned a little bit of attention, especially from the Corps' command.
Anyways. Ranting again. Sorry.
Point being:
Uniforms should be, must be, UNIFORM.
Because, uniforms reinforce combat standards for everyone.
And, combat standards for everyone means everyone has the potential do survive and thrive in any situation where the command has been wiped out (combat).
I'm going to stop myself now, before I type another eight pages because I just keep thinking more things, and trying to put them down.... The train of thought isn't on rails, it's more like a 4-wheeler, one that lost its driver but has the throttle pinned wide open, and just runs around and around and around.
There we go again.
OK, 'bye.
Now, while I just read another article about this, and apparently any such allowances would have to be granted by the units' command, and that they must not interfere with the service member's safety or health in any way. Which makes sense. BUT:
Military uniforms are called UNIFORMs for a REASON: they're uniform! Everything is interchangeable and smooth, every action repeatable, every part interchangeable. It doesn't matter if you don't like wearing a cover, or-- oh, for you non-Marines (far too many of you are out there...) a "cover" is your uniform's hat-- or whatever, guess what? It doesn't fucking matter; you're wearing a cover. You like having your hat on inside? Too bad, you take it off the moment you set foot inside that door.
These are basic things, things which reinforce the importance of unity and uniformity. Every man and woman needs to be able to take any other warrior's place if the need should arise. That is the mentality which supports most everything in the military. In boot camp, every single rack is literally measured an exact distance from each wall; from each other; from the Drill Instructor's Highway; every footlocker is stacked precisely; each and every combination lock is pointed to "0"; every rack is made exactly the same way. That way, if something happens to you, anyone in the area can help you out.
Find one method which works and can be replicated en masse, and that becomes military doctrine for the next century, because "we know that this way works, and we would much rather take the confirmed way than take chances with how you want to do things." And what happens if you're in camp and there's an emergency, say you were stabbed in your rack, and-- OK, "rack" is your bed-- and someone came rushing in to save you. They had everything needed, but they tripped on the footlocker and fell, cracking their head on the rifle that wasn't where they'd expected it to be, and now you're going to die. So, everything is done the same way. Nothing is mixed up or lost or confused, because everyone knows exactly where everything will be in everyone else's space.
This stems from combat-- a concept which I fear is being lost in the military, that policy should absolutely reflect those ideals for combat; the things learned in combat should absolutely imbue every action of the organization. In combat, every man knows the job of the man above him in rank/position; therefore, if the top man gets killed, the unit isn't necessarily lost, because immediately there is at least one other person there who knows how to lead them. Therefore, EVERYTHING that you do, everything you see, everything you make, must be replicable and repeatable by someone else, so that when you're in combat it's totally automatic to learn what to do in your command's place, and make it as easy as possible for the man below you to pick up in your place. Say a large portion of a unit's command was wiped out in combat; a large-scale ingress of officers and staff would be needed to replace them, and the predecessors wouldn't be there to teach their method of filing or anything like that. So, if everything is done the same way everywhere, anyone can theoretically step in and take over if needed.
I'm rambling; I'm not even sure if this makes any sense at this point. If not, say something; I'll try to edit it when I'm actually awake sometime, make it more... intelligible.
But anyway: so, yes. Everything is, more or less, interchangeable.
And everything must be efficient and effective. This is why men must keep their hair very short-- because, for so long, men have been the only ones officially in combat roles; so, what was best in combat was determined. Uniformity is enforced, and efficiency is greatly increased. For women, the rule is essentially that the hair cannot interfere with wearing any military headgear- soft covers or Kevlar (helmet). Uniform, and effective.
Facial hair has been almost entirely banned. Special Forces units (MARSOC, SEALS, Delta, etc.) are permitted to grow facial hair, either to blend into the local populace of their AO [Area of Operation] or to minimize their efforts and footprint (waste, time spent, etc.) with shaving. But facial hair is generally banned, as it can easily harbor all kinds of dirt and grime and festering infections, and your face is NOT where you want an infection! So, facial hair is kept *minimal*, enough to discourage it entirely; hair on top of the head is kept rather brutally short, with rigid regulations as to the style and shape-- again, to enforce uniformity.
But now, you're going to be allowed facial hair? Oh, no. No.
Because now, we'll get to the final point. This is a little bit of Marine snobbery, but I do think it's true: EVERYTHING should be *about* combat. I say this is Marine Corps moto (motivation, for you civilians) because the Corps, on the closer-to-combat-infantry levels, is still focused on combat. The Corps is overwhelmingly focused on infantry MOS's; the majority of Marines are 03's (infantry). The Army is rather the other way around; but the Army has a massively different job than the Marine Corps, and as such should be more widely based. The Corps is the attack dog, the shock-and-awe punch; we're born of naval-based assault, i.e. "putting large and prepared ground forces in places you didn't expect", and Marine Ground, Air, and Artillery forces all work together very closely. Marines are a heavily concentrated attack on every level. We do less with more- "improvise, adapt, and overcome!"- because advance attack troops are often out beyond resupply and support. We train to achieve maximum combat efficiency- "every Marine a rifleman." But as top brass lose sight of that reality- they, sitting in their offices in comfortable Washington, D.C.- their policy shifts, it changes, to better conform to what they see of the Corps (those cushy offices and high-priced suits). Those changes are uniform-wide, so what they see as being best in their situation winds up being enforced halfway around the world, in a situation which is NOTHING LIKE theirs, and it distracts the focus away from combat, and onto the rulebooks.
The basic rules in the Marine Corps are based on combat; most every uniform rule can be traced back to its combat-related origins. For example, in Marine Corps Boot Camp, you are required to only ever hold your cup in the chow hall in one way: with your forefinger and thumb circled around the base, and your other three fingers curled fist-like beneath the base of the cup. It wasn't for some time that we learned why: that is precisely the drill-correct position to hold your fingers when pulling the bolt back during drill, at the "Inspection Arms" movement. It was so ingrained in your head already by then that it was natural. Everything in boot camp was like that, and quite a bit of the Corps in general is much like that. Combat-related movements, thought patterns, everything, all of it embedded within other routine motions, so that you don't even realize you're learning. It's the Karate Kid, only Mr Miyagi won't yell at him- Mr Miyagi will chew you the fuck out, scream at you until you feel like the dumbest, most worthless piece of shit on this Earth, and then make you do it all over again... all night. But then, after a week, suddenly it's all ingrained and muscle memory and automatic. So when you're riding in a truck on your first time outside the wire, and your truck gets blown off the road in an ambush, you aren't desperately and uselessly flailing at your rifle and missing every shot and endangering everyone even more; it's instinct. You've been doing this every day for the last two years, even if you didn't know it.
So, that's a long rant to say this: the best possible way to live in and through combat should be the basis for every rule and decision made, at least in combat elements. I.e., the entire Marine Corps, some of the Army and the Navy, a few Coasties, and NONE of the Chair Force. So if pilots want to wear bears and turbans over their club blazers, whipped in the wind as they zip along in their new sporty convertible, then that's fine. But Marines MUST stay focused on fighting.
I believe that that's a large part of why General Amos had so little respect from the day he stepped in as the Commandant; the basic Infantry Rifleman, 0311, and all of the 03's, and everyone who worked closely with 03's and thus picked up their mindset (i.e., most of the Corps-- except the Chair Wing) felt like the command had forgotten about them. The focus wasn't on them; the focus was on "looking professional for photos, so that Mommy and Daddy will be so proud of their little warrior, and won't complain to the Press about the Marine Corps being bloody and terrifying!" And while maybe that sounds selfish, like a child throwing a fit for attention, realize that this comes from 03's. Riflemen, machine gunners, Recon, snipers, the guys who are literally pointing weapons in the face of the guys who are trying to attack this country. I think that they earned a little bit of attention, especially from the Corps' command.
Anyways. Ranting again. Sorry.
Point being:
Uniforms should be, must be, UNIFORM.
Because, uniforms reinforce combat standards for everyone.
And, combat standards for everyone means everyone has the potential do survive and thrive in any situation where the command has been wiped out (combat).
I'm going to stop myself now, before I type another eight pages because I just keep thinking more things, and trying to put them down.... The train of thought isn't on rails, it's more like a 4-wheeler, one that lost its driver but has the throttle pinned wide open, and just runs around and around and around.
There we go again.
OK, 'bye.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Sex Sells. Unless You're Selling Sex....
Why is prostitution illegal?!
OK, the title of this post is kind of misleading, because sex does still sell. I meant legally selling, and it would have made it sound more awkward to put "legally" in the title. Mess up the flow. Whatever. You know what I mean.
BTW, I should warn you that this post is going to be NSFW. Even more so than usual. If you have a girlfriend, wife, kids, mother, father, friend, sibling, etc. who could walk in on you, you might want to stop reading- I'm going to be posting some highly graphic and perverted pictures to prove my point. And no, I'm NOT going to blur out the "naughty bits", because I fucking hate censorship. Everyone knows what's there; so, let the fucked-up slideshow begin!
Yes, that's a girl shitting in a guy's mouth. Because that's sexy to someone. And totally legal.
So's this:
Yes, she's in pain. But she likes it, so that's legal.
Why is prostitution illegal? I really don't get it. What's so bad about it? Oh, what, that it encourages mistreatment and forced prostitution? Um, no, actually, it does the opposite. "In Amsterdam, we have very few sexual crimes, because the girls are out there in the open. Criminalise, what for? It will always be there, if you try to suppress it, it will come back in one form or another and it will be harder to control." (http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/11/prostitution-netherlands-paying-sex)
Everyone knows that men will pay for sex, and that they'll pay quite a lot for it if they have to, and just about everyone wants to make money; so, money for sex is a pretty obvious and very lucrative choice. The fact that it's illegal is an obstacle, but by no means is it an impassable one; all prostitution's criminality really does is force the pimps and whores underground, and so long as they're already underground why not dabble in the more unsavory aspects of the game? Forced prostitution is rampant, and since all prostitutes are already illegal here, there isn't really any good way to distinguish between consensual and forced sex trafficking. Child prostitution, same thing; since the pimps and traffickers are already underground, it's an easy step and it adds a good bit of money.
But it isn't actually illegal to pay for sex, or to be paid for sex. Porn stars do it all the time, and it's perfectly legal. There is no shame, no cover-up, nothing; they are paid to perform sexual acts, and they do so on the condition of receiving money for it. Porn studios don't pay the stars to spend quality time with one another, maybe give/get a massage, and set up cameras in the hope of filming some down-and-dirtiness; no, they're totally open and up-front with it all.
So this isn't illegal:
Or:
(yes, she's pregnant)
OK I'm going to stop now. You get the point. Men and women can, and will, and do, quite often engage in some highly unseemly sexual behavior without any fear of legal intervention. You know what? If you want to see what's really totally legal, go Google "Rule 34". (and then bleach your eyes... I'm sorry!)
So, wait.... We can, and do, pay for someone else to have sex; and people are paid to have sex; and they can do just about anything they want to, within some very, very broad limits (for instance, drawing a 2-year-old having sex is legal here). So it's not like this is protecting the country's innocence or morality at all. And it's NOT protecting women. At all. So wait- why is prostitution "illegal"? For the same reason marijuana is?
Well, that makes sense. Why is marijuana illegal? Especially when alcohol, tobacco, and prescription narcotics are perfectly legal within very broad limits. Put that way, they're kind of a perfect analogy, prostitution and Mary Jane. Something that people enjoy, and which can be abused and almost certainly will be abused if not legally regulated, is denounced as illegal and shameful and sinful and awful and horrible and no we can't have that.
Wait.... why not??
OK, the title of this post is kind of misleading, because sex does still sell. I meant legally selling, and it would have made it sound more awkward to put "legally" in the title. Mess up the flow. Whatever. You know what I mean.
BTW, I should warn you that this post is going to be NSFW. Even more so than usual. If you have a girlfriend, wife, kids, mother, father, friend, sibling, etc. who could walk in on you, you might want to stop reading- I'm going to be posting some highly graphic and perverted pictures to prove my point. And no, I'm NOT going to blur out the "naughty bits", because I fucking hate censorship. Everyone knows what's there; so, let the fucked-up slideshow begin!
Yes, that's a girl shitting in a guy's mouth. Because that's sexy to someone. And totally legal.So's this:
Yes, she's in pain. But she likes it, so that's legal.
Why is prostitution illegal? I really don't get it. What's so bad about it? Oh, what, that it encourages mistreatment and forced prostitution? Um, no, actually, it does the opposite. "In Amsterdam, we have very few sexual crimes, because the girls are out there in the open. Criminalise, what for? It will always be there, if you try to suppress it, it will come back in one form or another and it will be harder to control." (http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/11/prostitution-netherlands-paying-sex)
Everyone knows that men will pay for sex, and that they'll pay quite a lot for it if they have to, and just about everyone wants to make money; so, money for sex is a pretty obvious and very lucrative choice. The fact that it's illegal is an obstacle, but by no means is it an impassable one; all prostitution's criminality really does is force the pimps and whores underground, and so long as they're already underground why not dabble in the more unsavory aspects of the game? Forced prostitution is rampant, and since all prostitutes are already illegal here, there isn't really any good way to distinguish between consensual and forced sex trafficking. Child prostitution, same thing; since the pimps and traffickers are already underground, it's an easy step and it adds a good bit of money.
But it isn't actually illegal to pay for sex, or to be paid for sex. Porn stars do it all the time, and it's perfectly legal. There is no shame, no cover-up, nothing; they are paid to perform sexual acts, and they do so on the condition of receiving money for it. Porn studios don't pay the stars to spend quality time with one another, maybe give/get a massage, and set up cameras in the hope of filming some down-and-dirtiness; no, they're totally open and up-front with it all.
So this isn't illegal:
Or:
(yes, she's pregnant)
OK I'm going to stop now. You get the point. Men and women can, and will, and do, quite often engage in some highly unseemly sexual behavior without any fear of legal intervention. You know what? If you want to see what's really totally legal, go Google "Rule 34". (and then bleach your eyes... I'm sorry!)
So, wait.... We can, and do, pay for someone else to have sex; and people are paid to have sex; and they can do just about anything they want to, within some very, very broad limits (for instance, drawing a 2-year-old having sex is legal here). So it's not like this is protecting the country's innocence or morality at all. And it's NOT protecting women. At all. So wait- why is prostitution "illegal"? For the same reason marijuana is?
Well, that makes sense. Why is marijuana illegal? Especially when alcohol, tobacco, and prescription narcotics are perfectly legal within very broad limits. Put that way, they're kind of a perfect analogy, prostitution and Mary Jane. Something that people enjoy, and which can be abused and almost certainly will be abused if not legally regulated, is denounced as illegal and shameful and sinful and awful and horrible and no we can't have that.
Wait.... why not??
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Driving
Surprise, surprise- another post about driving!
Actually... I don't think I've all that many posts about driving. But I think about it a LOT, and I talk about it a lot. So maybe I just feel like I have. But I don't think I actually have.
Anyway.
So, this isn't about the stupid shit people do when they drive. This is about the laws.
See, speed limits are ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that they're the most often broken, and probably the most egregiously broken, laws in the United States, if not the world. And why?
Well, let's think about it: the police only really care if you're going 10+mph over the limit. Only in small towns will you get stopped for going 6mph over the speed limit. Me, I now live a few moments from the Capital Beltway, and I frequently drive on the Beltway. And on the Beltway, where the speed limit- that's the *limit*- is 55mph, most people drive 65+mph. It's not unusual at all to see people driving over 70mph; people driving minivans, SUV's, maybe with small children in the back seat, people in old cars, people in clunky old things, etc., they all blow away the 'limit'. "Oh, shit- there's a cop!" *brakes*... 55mph... 45... 45... 50... "OK, he's gone!" 55... 65... 73......
Why? Why is it called a "speed *limit*"? Presumably (having done NO research on this, just logically considering the name) it would be because that is estimated to be the fastest one can drive in that area.
OK, but clearly, that's bullshit. I'm NOT going to say what I personally do, because I'm not about to risk implicating myself in any illegal activities, but I do know many people who drive well above the limit, and I see people all the time who drive faster than the posted legal 'limit', and I'd say that they have as many car accidents, as often, as everyone else. (Well, I say 'everyone else', but I really don't know many people at *all* who actually drive the posted limit. And I don't know anyone who drives below the posted limit- which presumably you would do, because that's the *limit*, the *fastest* you can go, so wouldn't you drive below it most of the time?
Yeah. No. I can practically see you shaking your head and being amused at the suggestion. No, of fucking course you don't. That's ludicrous.
Why is the limit so low? I say the limit (as least on the Beltway) should be around... oh, 80mph? 75mph? Yeah, that sounds crazy-fast... but people regularly drive that fast. And they do it while other people are driving 55, or 45, or slower, and that's dangerous. There is a general rule that you should always try to stay in the furthest right lane- only go left to pass people. Theoretically, this means that the slower people stay right, and the fastest go around them, and there are no conflicts. People don't do this. I'll admit, I sometimes forget that I should really go right; and then someone will pass me on the right, and I'll go, "oh, yeah!" and change lanes to the right. But I've been in that left lane, and suddenly there's someone doing 40mph there. That's dangerous.
I'm rambling, and I don't know what I'm going to say next, so I'm just going to go back to my point:
GET RID OF 55mph SPEED LIMITS on major highways! Practically NO ONE follows them anyway! Make 5mph a *recommended* speed- even put that on the signs- but the *LIMIT* should be around 80mph. Because people are going to drive that anyway. Reinforce the "stay to the right" guideline. And since traffic light cameras and speed cameras are already becoming a 'thing' everywhere, let's just go all-out; speed cameras everywhere. It's not unreasonable to ask you to follow an 80mph limit. Make the 'limit' and actual *limit*, where if you break it you *will* get in trouble, because beyond that speed it will be pretty dangerous.
I feel like this wasn't worded well, I rambled, and I kind of lost it... not a very strong argument. Maybe I'll post more on this later. But for now, bye. Again.
Actually... I don't think I've all that many posts about driving. But I think about it a LOT, and I talk about it a lot. So maybe I just feel like I have. But I don't think I actually have.
Anyway.
So, this isn't about the stupid shit people do when they drive. This is about the laws.
See, speed limits are ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that they're the most often broken, and probably the most egregiously broken, laws in the United States, if not the world. And why?
Well, let's think about it: the police only really care if you're going 10+mph over the limit. Only in small towns will you get stopped for going 6mph over the speed limit. Me, I now live a few moments from the Capital Beltway, and I frequently drive on the Beltway. And on the Beltway, where the speed limit- that's the *limit*- is 55mph, most people drive 65+mph. It's not unusual at all to see people driving over 70mph; people driving minivans, SUV's, maybe with small children in the back seat, people in old cars, people in clunky old things, etc., they all blow away the 'limit'. "Oh, shit- there's a cop!" *brakes*... 55mph... 45... 45... 50... "OK, he's gone!" 55... 65... 73......
Why? Why is it called a "speed *limit*"? Presumably (having done NO research on this, just logically considering the name) it would be because that is estimated to be the fastest one can drive in that area.
OK, but clearly, that's bullshit. I'm NOT going to say what I personally do, because I'm not about to risk implicating myself in any illegal activities, but I do know many people who drive well above the limit, and I see people all the time who drive faster than the posted legal 'limit', and I'd say that they have as many car accidents, as often, as everyone else. (Well, I say 'everyone else', but I really don't know many people at *all* who actually drive the posted limit. And I don't know anyone who drives below the posted limit- which presumably you would do, because that's the *limit*, the *fastest* you can go, so wouldn't you drive below it most of the time?
Yeah. No. I can practically see you shaking your head and being amused at the suggestion. No, of fucking course you don't. That's ludicrous.
Why is the limit so low? I say the limit (as least on the Beltway) should be around... oh, 80mph? 75mph? Yeah, that sounds crazy-fast... but people regularly drive that fast. And they do it while other people are driving 55, or 45, or slower, and that's dangerous. There is a general rule that you should always try to stay in the furthest right lane- only go left to pass people. Theoretically, this means that the slower people stay right, and the fastest go around them, and there are no conflicts. People don't do this. I'll admit, I sometimes forget that I should really go right; and then someone will pass me on the right, and I'll go, "oh, yeah!" and change lanes to the right. But I've been in that left lane, and suddenly there's someone doing 40mph there. That's dangerous.
I'm rambling, and I don't know what I'm going to say next, so I'm just going to go back to my point:
GET RID OF 55mph SPEED LIMITS on major highways! Practically NO ONE follows them anyway! Make 5mph a *recommended* speed- even put that on the signs- but the *LIMIT* should be around 80mph. Because people are going to drive that anyway. Reinforce the "stay to the right" guideline. And since traffic light cameras and speed cameras are already becoming a 'thing' everywhere, let's just go all-out; speed cameras everywhere. It's not unreasonable to ask you to follow an 80mph limit. Make the 'limit' and actual *limit*, where if you break it you *will* get in trouble, because beyond that speed it will be pretty dangerous.
I feel like this wasn't worded well, I rambled, and I kind of lost it... not a very strong argument. Maybe I'll post more on this later. But for now, bye. Again.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Well, hi there!
So it's been a while.
The two people who sometimes read this before seem to have stopped reading- probably because I tend to not post anything for a while, then post something weird and confused and inexplicable. Not that I'm upset; it's just nice to feel like someone's picking up what you put down, you know? Shit, the post I had about gay marriage got more hits than... I think more than all the other posts put together. But that's probably from a lot of people at the time Googling "same-sex marriage" because of the political issues right then, and that post came up.
So now let's talk.
I've been living alone for... well, about three weeks now. I moved into this apartment about a week before Christmas. Well, "alone"- a guy lives here, has for a year and a half, but he leaves early for his job and comes back late and often doesn't come back at all because he has a very serious girlfriend, so it's practically just me and Zeus, my 5-month-old Boxer/Bulldog (I think) puppy who's starting to get a bit bigger now. He keeps me up and moving, keeps me looking out for him and mostly tracking what's going on, what I need to do, what needs to be done, etc., but... it's not like another person. I honestly never thought I would say this, but I wish someone were here.
Specifically, a girl.
"My" girl (for lack of a better way to say that) would be much, much better. A girl I was with.
I miss talking to someone. I haven't done that for a while. Just in-and-out, everyday, whatever. Now, my contact with people is by phone or email or Facebook; I feel bad if I send a text to someone without any purpose behind it. What, I'm just going to send texts to my sisters telling them that the grocery store didn't have ____, and I forgot to check the mail? Um, no. Just having someone there for that kind of totally meaningless talking is..... again, NOT something I thought I would ever, ever miss... but I seem to now.
So I'm trying to get this place set up nicely. Which is hard, because I'm used to being either in a family's home, where everything is used and has been there for ages and so-and-so had this and we thought it was great so we got one; or, in a barracks environment. Polar opposites. So now, I'm trying to figure out what's necessary and what's just clutter and what's stuff you only need for a large number of people. Grocery stores and furniture places and such, they aren't really designed for the single person, cooking/baking/building/working for only their own singular self. It's much harder when you aren't really sued to shopping, buying, planning, preparing, storing, etc. for just yourself.
And I'm trying to make this 'home'. So I've spent some money- OK, rather a good hunk of money- for the little comforts. I bought two LED strip lights, one of which is on my headboard and one is on the wall, in the corner. Why? Well, that corner was first- the single ceiling dome light doesn't light that corner well, and that's where the desk is, so I wanted it to have light to read/write/work/etc. LEDs last a long time, and I like the strip lights- there's no *thing* there with a bulb in it, just a strip on the wall. And the bed? Well, without any lamps, I'd have the ceiling light on, and when I went to bed I'd have to hop up (on one leg) and hit the switch, which is just far enough that I'd have to lean over a good bit (on one leg) and lean against the wall and turn it off, and then push myself off and fall back to sit on the bed (on one leg). And that wasn't convenient; and if I had to get up again in the dark,it was even harder because I'd have to blindly fall forward (standing on one leg), hoping my muscle memory was true, until I caught myself on the wall and felt for the switch (on one leg) and turned it on. So now, I have nice reading light in bed, it's indirect, and I have an on/off switch just at the edge of the headboard.
I got my bed, and a chair to sit in, and a comfortable mattress, and I got a cubby-shelf-thing, and just today I bought a three-cubby bench to put by the door, because I've been taking my shoes off when I come in, but with a prosthetic foot it's hard to just get shoes on and off; so I have an extra leg (my leg disconnects from the socket just below my knee) and I'll take my right shoe off, and then take the leg off and switch it for my indoor leg, so now I have a bench to sit on and do that and cubbies for my shoes/legs to go in. And I've bought quite a lot of kitchen stuff and was given a lot, as well (the kitchen was pretty much empty when I got here- no food, no utensils, only one pan and one pot, etc...)
So, it's starting to get comfortable. Now, I just have to actually put all the shit in my room away, and stop buying things whose boxes add to the clutter in the room, and... settle.
Oh, and I have to read 100+ pages about international relations, from the Peloponnesian War to about World War One, and then write a 2-page paper on something from the reading. :)
Oh, and I need to talk to my prosthetist about a bike-riding leg.
And I need to get that woman to pick up her phone so I can cancel an appointment.
And tomorrow, I have to go to the gym.
And sign something at the Ford dealership.
And work on my woodcarving project (I'll post some pictures when I finish it)
And find out if my new debit card has come, because I didn't change my mailing address before they sent it out to replace the one which I have which was picked out in that Target security breach recently.
And I need to sleep.
The two people who sometimes read this before seem to have stopped reading- probably because I tend to not post anything for a while, then post something weird and confused and inexplicable. Not that I'm upset; it's just nice to feel like someone's picking up what you put down, you know? Shit, the post I had about gay marriage got more hits than... I think more than all the other posts put together. But that's probably from a lot of people at the time Googling "same-sex marriage" because of the political issues right then, and that post came up.
So now let's talk.
I've been living alone for... well, about three weeks now. I moved into this apartment about a week before Christmas. Well, "alone"- a guy lives here, has for a year and a half, but he leaves early for his job and comes back late and often doesn't come back at all because he has a very serious girlfriend, so it's practically just me and Zeus, my 5-month-old Boxer/Bulldog (I think) puppy who's starting to get a bit bigger now. He keeps me up and moving, keeps me looking out for him and mostly tracking what's going on, what I need to do, what needs to be done, etc., but... it's not like another person. I honestly never thought I would say this, but I wish someone were here.
Specifically, a girl.
"My" girl (for lack of a better way to say that) would be much, much better. A girl I was with.
I miss talking to someone. I haven't done that for a while. Just in-and-out, everyday, whatever. Now, my contact with people is by phone or email or Facebook; I feel bad if I send a text to someone without any purpose behind it. What, I'm just going to send texts to my sisters telling them that the grocery store didn't have ____, and I forgot to check the mail? Um, no. Just having someone there for that kind of totally meaningless talking is..... again, NOT something I thought I would ever, ever miss... but I seem to now.
So I'm trying to get this place set up nicely. Which is hard, because I'm used to being either in a family's home, where everything is used and has been there for ages and so-and-so had this and we thought it was great so we got one; or, in a barracks environment. Polar opposites. So now, I'm trying to figure out what's necessary and what's just clutter and what's stuff you only need for a large number of people. Grocery stores and furniture places and such, they aren't really designed for the single person, cooking/baking/building/working for only their own singular self. It's much harder when you aren't really sued to shopping, buying, planning, preparing, storing, etc. for just yourself.
And I'm trying to make this 'home'. So I've spent some money- OK, rather a good hunk of money- for the little comforts. I bought two LED strip lights, one of which is on my headboard and one is on the wall, in the corner. Why? Well, that corner was first- the single ceiling dome light doesn't light that corner well, and that's where the desk is, so I wanted it to have light to read/write/work/etc. LEDs last a long time, and I like the strip lights- there's no *thing* there with a bulb in it, just a strip on the wall. And the bed? Well, without any lamps, I'd have the ceiling light on, and when I went to bed I'd have to hop up (on one leg) and hit the switch, which is just far enough that I'd have to lean over a good bit (on one leg) and lean against the wall and turn it off, and then push myself off and fall back to sit on the bed (on one leg). And that wasn't convenient; and if I had to get up again in the dark,it was even harder because I'd have to blindly fall forward (standing on one leg), hoping my muscle memory was true, until I caught myself on the wall and felt for the switch (on one leg) and turned it on. So now, I have nice reading light in bed, it's indirect, and I have an on/off switch just at the edge of the headboard.
I got my bed, and a chair to sit in, and a comfortable mattress, and I got a cubby-shelf-thing, and just today I bought a three-cubby bench to put by the door, because I've been taking my shoes off when I come in, but with a prosthetic foot it's hard to just get shoes on and off; so I have an extra leg (my leg disconnects from the socket just below my knee) and I'll take my right shoe off, and then take the leg off and switch it for my indoor leg, so now I have a bench to sit on and do that and cubbies for my shoes/legs to go in. And I've bought quite a lot of kitchen stuff and was given a lot, as well (the kitchen was pretty much empty when I got here- no food, no utensils, only one pan and one pot, etc...)
So, it's starting to get comfortable. Now, I just have to actually put all the shit in my room away, and stop buying things whose boxes add to the clutter in the room, and... settle.
Oh, and I have to read 100+ pages about international relations, from the Peloponnesian War to about World War One, and then write a 2-page paper on something from the reading. :)
Oh, and I need to talk to my prosthetist about a bike-riding leg.
And I need to get that woman to pick up her phone so I can cancel an appointment.
And tomorrow, I have to go to the gym.
And sign something at the Ford dealership.
And work on my woodcarving project (I'll post some pictures when I finish it)
And find out if my new debit card has come, because I didn't change my mailing address before they sent it out to replace the one which I have which was picked out in that Target security breach recently.
And I need to sleep.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Fuck Movie-Romance
So, this is just a really short post. I know, it's been *forever* since I posted anything; but I had something to say.
I fucking hate Romantic Comedies.
NOT because I'm a guy, and guys hate mushy shit unless they're gay. I have 3 sisters and mostly female cousins and aunts and my family is generally a matriarchy; as such, I've gotten very used to watching 'chick-flicks' and RomComs over the years. Back in high school, I established that I had seen more chick-flicks than either of my two best friends- both of whom were female.
So no, it's not because they're gushy and mushy and lovey-dovey. Yes, that annoys me. But that's not what I'm ranting about right now.
I hate them because RomComs tell you that so long as you're a good guy, if you're the *right* guy, it doesn't matter if you're the wrong age ("The Rebound"), or if you've had way more sex than the girl and continue to regularly fuck around the time you're with "the" girl ("No Strings Attached", "Californication" [admittedly not a chick-flick]), or if you live on opposite ends of the earth (take your pick), or life just doesn't like either of you and you can't seem to get together (anything with one person in the military), or if you're the wrong gender, even ("Saving Face", "Imagine Me and You", "I Can't Think Straight"), or... anything. Nope. If you're the right person, and you want her, then it WILL happen. No question. It WILL.
But no. No, it doesn't. Nope.
I had a girlfriend I loved deeply, and I still care for her a great deal. And she stayed with me while I went off to Boot Camp, and then MCT and Comm School, and then when I deployed, and was with me and took her own time and money from her *crazy* schedule to come down from New York to Maryland to see me, unconscious and/or out of my fucking mind on drugs, just to be there. And then I, being high as a motherfucking kite and confused (for about two months, I would have sworn on a Bible that I was dreaming), I broke up with her and then, slowly coming out of the haze of Ketamine and God-and-Satan-know-what-all-else, I kept fucking shit up and she was hurt and she was finished wit me.
Then followed about a year and a half of pain and exhaustion and depression and loneliness. I was alone, day in and day out, at Walter Reed. Yes, I had and still have an amazing "support system", what with my family and my guys in the Corps and everyone was there to talk if I ever needed it. But I felt alone. There was no one to whom I was honestly close; not like that. There is a huge difference between your parents, who love you dearly and whom you (hopefully) love back, or your siblings you've known your whole life who care for you and whom you depend on, and someone who isn't related to you but with whom you share yourself. Maybe you don't tell them everything; but you're *close*. Not physically, maybe, but emotionally to form a connection with someone who's outside of normal, assumed connections? That means quite a lot. (at least, it does to me)
So I, somehow, in the *last* place I ever expected to, did that. I found someone who needed help, needed support, needed that intimacy; and they were uniquely able to understand my position and to help me a great deal with what I needed help with. They saved me from a really deep, dark hole of depression and loneliness and sadness and.... just, a bad place. I could focus on something else.
But now, that's over.
Well.......... Like I said, there's a *huge* difference between a "friend" and a "more-than-friend"/"girlfriend". She's still a great friend; but there's still that deeper, more personal connection which isn't there. I can't curl up and hold her all night long anymore. And that changes everything.
So now, after a few months of chaos and noise and things to be done almost all day, now..... I'm by myself again. Now, I'm in an apartment with a 26-year old who works *early* in the morning and gets back late- *if* he gets back, because he has a serious girlfriend with whom he often stays- so it's me and Zeus, my puppy, all day. And it's so fucking quiet. And I'm starting to remember just how I got into that depressed, do-nothing, deadened hole I was in before. There's nothing really to distract me. Sure, I can read; I can walk outside (some); I can watch something, clean my room, etc. But in the end, it's still just me. No one is there to help; no one is there to help me;
Anyway. I'm falling asleep, so I'm finished.
for now...
-ADJ
I fucking hate Romantic Comedies.
NOT because I'm a guy, and guys hate mushy shit unless they're gay. I have 3 sisters and mostly female cousins and aunts and my family is generally a matriarchy; as such, I've gotten very used to watching 'chick-flicks' and RomComs over the years. Back in high school, I established that I had seen more chick-flicks than either of my two best friends- both of whom were female.
So no, it's not because they're gushy and mushy and lovey-dovey. Yes, that annoys me. But that's not what I'm ranting about right now.
I hate them because RomComs tell you that so long as you're a good guy, if you're the *right* guy, it doesn't matter if you're the wrong age ("The Rebound"), or if you've had way more sex than the girl and continue to regularly fuck around the time you're with "the" girl ("No Strings Attached", "Californication" [admittedly not a chick-flick]), or if you live on opposite ends of the earth (take your pick), or life just doesn't like either of you and you can't seem to get together (anything with one person in the military), or if you're the wrong gender, even ("Saving Face", "Imagine Me and You", "I Can't Think Straight"), or... anything. Nope. If you're the right person, and you want her, then it WILL happen. No question. It WILL.
But no. No, it doesn't. Nope.
I had a girlfriend I loved deeply, and I still care for her a great deal. And she stayed with me while I went off to Boot Camp, and then MCT and Comm School, and then when I deployed, and was with me and took her own time and money from her *crazy* schedule to come down from New York to Maryland to see me, unconscious and/or out of my fucking mind on drugs, just to be there. And then I, being high as a motherfucking kite and confused (for about two months, I would have sworn on a Bible that I was dreaming), I broke up with her and then, slowly coming out of the haze of Ketamine and God-and-Satan-know-what-all-else, I kept fucking shit up and she was hurt and she was finished wit me.
Then followed about a year and a half of pain and exhaustion and depression and loneliness. I was alone, day in and day out, at Walter Reed. Yes, I had and still have an amazing "support system", what with my family and my guys in the Corps and everyone was there to talk if I ever needed it. But I felt alone. There was no one to whom I was honestly close; not like that. There is a huge difference between your parents, who love you dearly and whom you (hopefully) love back, or your siblings you've known your whole life who care for you and whom you depend on, and someone who isn't related to you but with whom you share yourself. Maybe you don't tell them everything; but you're *close*. Not physically, maybe, but emotionally to form a connection with someone who's outside of normal, assumed connections? That means quite a lot. (at least, it does to me)
So I, somehow, in the *last* place I ever expected to, did that. I found someone who needed help, needed support, needed that intimacy; and they were uniquely able to understand my position and to help me a great deal with what I needed help with. They saved me from a really deep, dark hole of depression and loneliness and sadness and.... just, a bad place. I could focus on something else.
But now, that's over.
Well.......... Like I said, there's a *huge* difference between a "friend" and a "more-than-friend"/"girlfriend". She's still a great friend; but there's still that deeper, more personal connection which isn't there. I can't curl up and hold her all night long anymore. And that changes everything.
So now, after a few months of chaos and noise and things to be done almost all day, now..... I'm by myself again. Now, I'm in an apartment with a 26-year old who works *early* in the morning and gets back late- *if* he gets back, because he has a serious girlfriend with whom he often stays- so it's me and Zeus, my puppy, all day. And it's so fucking quiet. And I'm starting to remember just how I got into that depressed, do-nothing, deadened hole I was in before. There's nothing really to distract me. Sure, I can read; I can walk outside (some); I can watch something, clean my room, etc. But in the end, it's still just me. No one is there to help; no one is there to help me;
Anyway. I'm falling asleep, so I'm finished.
for now...
-ADJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)